Talk:Education Maintenance Allowance

Bribe?

"EMA can be seen as a bribe to stay on, and the money given out is supposed to be spent on essential school items. However, the money gets fed straight to the students' bank accounts, which they can spend on whatever they like."

It's not actually supposed to be spent on any specific thing, the government does stress that EMA can be spent on anything the student wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schizmatic (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 March 2006

Article needs cleanup

The article seems to be a list of general grievances with UK student funding rather than specifically on the EMA. Possibly needs cleanup and removal of bias?

Yes, unless something is sourced, it can be removed. Skinnyweed 19:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to update this section and remove the criticism that it 'discriminates against the Nuclear family' - this is the case for every cash benefit / benefit in kind that is dependent on benefit unit income. Its difficult to overcome.

Minor changes

I noticed a couple of things that needed changing:

• The top income amount was slightly wrong.
• Bonuses aren't necessarily awarded for academic progress, it's entirely at the discretion of the learning provider.
• EMA isn't for students studying "after GCSEs in England or Standard Grades in Scotland", this gives the impression these qualifications are necessary to receive it when they are not.
• From this year onwards, EMA is also available for those undertaking unpaid work-based learning.

--JordR 22:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Article Bias

This article seems to be quite biased against ema, and doesnt speak to much of the benefits of the ema system. I recieve ema at the moment and believe it is a very good system and has encouraged me to aim for 100% attendance rather than missing days off college for no reason.

I have removed the one highlighted POV statement, will have a look for more now SGGH 12:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged it so that neutrality can be discussed. GJAF 11:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have posted another benefit (the third paragraph). FrankPalmerWhite 22:30, 01 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously as a recipient of this benefit you are going to be biased in favour of it. It is truly open to widescale abuse, as is demonstrative in my local education establishments. 81.152.134.85 (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Equally, as someone who has witnessed it being "open to widescale abuse ... in [your] local education establishments", you are obviously going to be biased against it. It works both ways, and just as the drawbacks of EMA cannot be denied, the benefits most certainly cannot either. _TalkIslander 02:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it funded?

I read this article but it doesn't say exactly where the money comes from. I heard somewhere that it was set up by the government and if it comes from them, where do they get it from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tk420 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

By taxes, of course! Or borrowing, if the government's running a deficit. 131.111.245.195 (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

History lacking

The EMA has been in operation since at least the early 1980s, as I got one while at FE college IN 1984-85. We need some history here! Nick Cooper (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

EMA was introduced in 2003 - if you received money at FE college, then it was under an entirely different scheme... _TalkIslander 15:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it was definitely called an "Educational Maintenance Allowance" in 1984, although perhaps it may have been amended or reintroduced after a previous abolition in 2003. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The term 'Education Maintenance Allowance' strikes me as a fairly generic term which could be used to describe any form of allowance received by students to maintain their education, so it'd make sense that your's was probably called the same thing. I don't reckon that means it was the same thing, though... _TalkIslander 18:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of digging, and there is evidence in Hansard of the term being in use in Northern Ireland, referring to a benefit actually in place, in 1989 [1] (although not capitalised, neither is "income support"). This from 1986 and this from 1991 suggests that earlier EMAs were locally rather than nationally based. Clearly they weren't the same as the current formalised national EMA, but they were the precursor in the same way that the - for example - some pre-NHS national insurance benefits were precursors of NHS provision. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There were certainly local pilot schemes the year before the national roll out. I don't know about earlier. 131.111.245.195 (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting finds, Nick... So to summarise, it would appear that EMA as it is now is started in 2003 (trials in 2002), and didn't exist beforehand. However, go back a decade, and similar schemes existed, but on a local rather than a national basis. I certainly reckon it's worth including this somehow... _TalkIslander 09:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

'2008 payment problems' section not totally accurate

It's worth noting that the technical side of the English EMA scheme is maintained by a completely separate organisation than the NI and Welsh scheme. The system for the NI and Welsh schemes are created and maintained by the Student Loans Company rather than this Liberata and there's absolutely no crossover between the two. Given that, this section of the article isn't totally accurate as it implies by omission that all EMA schemes suffered these problems when in reality it would only have been the English scheme.

I would make changes myself to that effect but, given where I'm posting this from, I don't know if it violates some conflict of interest rule here on Wiki or not so I'll settle for putting this info here and allowing other editors to make changes if they see fit.

62.189.108.179 (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote out of context

I removed:

The [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] have stated their opposition to EMA. Conservative Party spokesman [[Chris Grayling]] said: "This is another blatant example of the government trying to fiddle the figures. Bribing young people to sign up for courses they may not complete, might make ministers' targets look achievable - but they do absolutely nothing to help solve this country's chronic skills shortage."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4201329.stm</ref>

From the article because the quote appears to have been taken out of context. The criticism here is of an "EMA bonus", not of the EMA scheme as a whole itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.118.81 (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've deleted this because none of it is cited, and most appears purely annecdotal. There was some tags, but they were added 17 months ago, so it seems unlikely if they can be provide now if they haven't been in that time. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this article is strongly biased in favour of the EMA. I personally am not a supporter of the EMA at all. It was introduced just as I turned 19 as a student but people I know who recieved it simply saw it as pocket money or extra money for booze and tobacco not an incentive to stay in education. Now I know WP is not a place for POV but there is an excellent article from the Daily Telegraph which offers a compelling argument against gimmicks like the EMA. Check out this link it is an excellent and very true article. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100068427/yes-ema-should-be-scrapped-not-to-save-money-but-to-save-our-kids/ I think this has a place in the article. Thanks Christian1985 (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

EMA abolished?

With the school leaving age rising to 18, will EMA be abolished? Should this be noted in the article? Thanks. Liquinn (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. — R² 07:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)